OKLAHOMA CITY (AP) - A nonbinding resolution to reaffirm marriage as a union between a man and a woman and support the federal Defense of Marriage Act has been approved in the Oklahoma Senate.
The resolution sponsored by Norman Republican Sen. Rob Standridge was quickly adopted Tuesday on a voice vote. The House passed the resolution unanimously last week....
[The bill's] authors say it is meant to send a message to President Barack Obama and the U.S. Supreme Court, which recently heard arguments in two cases related to same-sex marriage rights.
This weekend our President Brian Brown appeared on Meet the Press to defend marriage and counter the lie that redefining marriage is inevitable:
On the question of marriage and the Supreme Court he said:
"The truth is the truth. The truth is marriage is based upon the distinction between men and women, husbands and wives, mothers and fathers. Marriage is the one institution that brings together the great halves of humanity male and female in one institution to connect husbands and wives together and to any children they may bear. The question before the court is not only on this issue of what is marriage, marriage is by definition the union of a man and a woman and apart from all this inevitability talk, 31 states have voted to say that is the truth, they've embedded it in their state constitutions, only 4 have voted against it. There's a myth that somehow this is inevitable, look, North Carolina passed its constitutional amendment 8 months ago by 61%. The polls in California had us at 36% support for traditional marriage but when people came out they voted to support traditional marriage so the real issue is, is the court going to launch another culture war by trumping the votes of these states and of the duly-elected members of Congress who passed DOMA."
On the question of whether the Supreme Court will rule on Prop 8:
"I don't think the court is going to punt, the court is going to answer the question, the question is simple: 'do the people of the state of California, do the people of the states of this country have the right to votes and voices heard, or is the court going to trash over 50 million votes.' The lower court ruling wasn't just about Proposition 8 and what is being brought forward is this myth that somehow embedded in our Constitution something the founders didn't see and we haven't seen up until now 'there is a right to redefine the very nature of marriage'."
Over the weekend our Communications Director Thomas Peters went on MSNBC to stand up for the rights of pro-marriage people to have their votes and voice respected by the Supreme Court:
On whether gays and lesbians are "politically powerless" he said:
"I think what John Roberts was asking was a really fascinating question because currently gay marriage activists are claiming that they are politically powerless and that's why we have to strike down laws defending marriage like the Defense of Marriage Act and Proposition 8. Whereas what the Chief Justice is saying is that actually gays and lesbians are very politically powerful -- the President supports them, the Democratic party platform supports them -- and so the idea that we need to strike down laws protecting marriage is absurd. What we need to uphold is that people have the ultimate right to decide marriage laws. The states, the democratic process is working, and we hope the Supreme Court will acknowledge the votes of over 45 million Americans who have voted to protect marriage as the union of one man and one woman."
On the question of whether Americans who are pro-marriage are akin to those who opposed interracial marriage he said:
"Laws against interracial marriage were meant to keep the races separate so they wouldn't have children together and they were wrong, marriage is meant to bring men and women together so they have children which is right. You cannot compare these two things at all and furthermore, I think it's really important what she brought up, the 45 million Americans who have voted to protect marriage are not motivated by animus towards gay people, they're motivated out of love for the institution, and [crosstalk] if the Supreme Court were to rule that laws defining marriage are akin to bigotry, then every person in this country who believes that children have a right to a mother and father will be treated as bigots under the law, that's why Steve and others might agree with me that the Supreme Court's not going to go there. We can work this out through the political process. The debate can continue. Questions as central as marriage should not be decided by the Supreme Court they should be decided by the people."
Dr. John Eastman, NOM's Chairman, is inside the Supreme Court again today for the oral arguments in the Defense of Marriage Act cases.
Today he explains in US News & World Report why DOMA isn't mandated by the Due Process clause:
Those seeking to redefine marriage into a genderless institution must be pessimistic about their chances before the Supreme Court, because they are doing everything they can to prevent the Court from deciding whether the traditional definition marriage, as expressed in the Defense of Marriage Act, is unconstitutional. The Department of Justice refused to defend the statute, despite the fact that it was overwhelmingly passed by bipartisan majorities in Congress and signed into law by President Clinton just a decade and a half ago. It now seeks to prevent the House of Representatives from defending the statute, so that the Court would not even have jurisdiction to hear the case.
But existing precedent is pretty clear—the Department can't deprive the Supreme Court of jurisdiction merely by refusing to do its duty and defend an Act of Congress; in such circumstances, Congress itself can intervene to defend a statute it passed.
Today our President Brian Brown is leading the March for Marriage on the national mall in Washington, D.C. but this weekend he was on FoxNews defending marriage in front of a national audience:
When asked about the Defense of Marriage Act, Speaker of the House John Boehner said:
"Let's not confused DOMA and the Administration's decision that it was unconstitutional. It's not their role to decide what's constitutional. DOMA was a law passed by the House, the Senate, and signed into law by President Clinton, and in our system of government the administration doesn't get to decide what's constitutional, the Supreme Court does."
Last night at the CPAC banquet Sen. DeMint strongly spoke out in defense of marriage:
"...We cannot hope to limit government if we do not stand up for our core civil society institutions, beginning with marriage. Marriage is the foundation of America’s cultural stability and economic prosperity and the courts have no business overruling the people’s democratic decisions in the states. People can love whom they want and live the way they choose, but no one is entitled to redefine a foundational institution of civil society that has existed for centuries.
In two weeks, the Supreme Court will hear arguments against the right of states to protect marriage and the federal Defense of Marriage Act. Judicial activism is to blame for the Court even considering these cases. The Supreme Court should uphold these laws. It must recognize that the American people should make these decisions, not unelected judges.
We are told that the social issues divide Americans and that we should stop talking about them. We cannot.
Economic and social conservatism go hand-in-hand. They’re natural allies. Strong families, churches and voluntary institutions build strong character and economic independence. And government must always remember we are endowed by our creator with life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That is true for you and me, and it is true for the unborn. When government understands its limited role, it can be smaller, people can be freer and our economy can create prosperity for everyone. And when government grows larger with programs like Obamacare that consume so much of our lives, it tramples on both economic freedom and religious liberty. This has united conservatives of all stripes to fight to end Obamacare so we can all be free to live our own lives."
You can read the rest of the speech and watch the video here.
More evidence that top gay activist groups are worried that their legal case before the Supreme Court is hardly airtight:
... Hoping to avoid a marriage case being heard by the more conservative Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, several organizations fighting for marriage equality — including the American Civil Liberties Union, Human Rights Campaign, Lambda Legal, and National Center for Lesbian Rights — suggested in a December 2012 filing that the court hold off.
... Although courtroom successes have been plenty in challenges to the Defense of Marriage Act, more direct marriage-rights cases have met with mixed results. Although courts in the Proposition 8 challenge have found the California amendment to be unconstitutional, federal marriage equality lawsuits in Hawaii and Nevada were rejected by trial courts.
... The case, initially filed in January 2012, came only after several LGBT organizations declined to participate, Dana Nessel, one of the couple's attorneys, told BuzzFeed Thursday. "What they told us is that they refuse to touch anything in the Sixth Circuit [Court of Appeals]."
The fear: they would lose.
Jay Kaplan of the ACLU of Michigan told BuzzFeed Friday that Nessel's assessment was accurate, saying, "If you're going to bring a marriage equality claim, you want to be sure that you're going to be successful at all stages of the process." Of the Sixth Circuit, he said, "There is not a progressive majority on the court." (BuzzFeed)
Paul Clement giving marriage (and DOMA) a strong defense:
Attorneys representing House Republicans in litigation against the Defense of Marriage Act before the Supreme Court are asserting that the Justice Department lacks standing to participate in the lawsuit.
The Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group, under the direction of U.S. House Speaker John Boehner, makes the argument in a 38-page brief filed on Friday in response to the court’s jurisdictional questions on standing in the challenge to Section 3 of DOMA, known as Windsor v. United States.
BLAG argues the Justice Department lacks standing because the Obama administration received the result it wanted from lower courts — including the U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals — striking down DOMA.
“It obtained the precise relief it believed was appropriate based on the precise theory (heightened scrutiny) it advocated,” the brief states. “The executive can fare no better before this Court. While this Court’s affirmance would have a greater precedential impact, the executive cannot ground its appellate standing on a desire for an opinion with the identical effect on this case and controversy, but a broader precedential scope for other cases.” (The Washington Blade)
Lyle Denniston of the SCOTUS blog on the the House GOP pointing out to SCOTUS that the Obama administration is trying to strike down DOMA after refusing to defend it:
The Republican leaders of the House of Representatives urged the Supreme Court on Friday to cast aside the Obama administration’s appeal on the constitutionality of the federal Defense of Marriage Act, though that already has been granted review, and to then take on the dispute in the GOP chiefs’ own case in defense of the law.
In a brief answering jurisdictional questions raised by the Court when it took on the DOMA dispute, the House’s Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group (BLAG) argued that it has a right under the Constitution’s Article III to be in court in DOMA cases. It noted that the administration has stopped defending the law and instead is attacking it.
The new filing also contended that the New York woman who was at the center of the case the Court is reviewing does not have a right to appeal. Both the administration and Ms. Windsor won in lower courts, getting everything that they wanted out of the controversy, and thus have given up their right to pursue the case in the Supreme Court.
“Without the House’s participation,” the document said, “it is hard to see how there is any case or controversy here at all. Both Ms. Windsor and the executive agree that DOMA is unconstitutional and that Ms. Windsor was entitled to a refund [for an estate tax she paid]. And the lower courts granted them all the relief they requested. Only the House’s intervention provides the adverseness that Article III demands.”
It remains to be seen if the White House will also call on the Supreme Court to strike down Proposition 8:
The Obama administration on Friday urged the Supreme Court to strike down the Defense of Marriage Act.
By forcing a federal definition of “spouse” and “marriage,” the administration argued in a brief, DOMA “violates the fundamental constitutional guarantee of equal protection. The law denies to tens of thousands of same-sex couples who are legally married under state law an array of important federal benefits that are available to legally married opposite-sex couples.”
The Obama administration has been urging courts to strike down DOMA for two years. Friday was the deadline to file briefs in the challenge to the 1996 law, scheduled to be heard March 27. (Politico)
During his confirmation hearing for the Supreme Court, Judge Robert Bork said one of his attractions to the court was that it would be an “intellectual feast.” There is certainly a feast going over the impending Supreme Court consideration of same-sex marriage. A mountain of friend-of-the-court briefs has landed in the hands of the Supreme Court, some of them utterly fascinating.
Two of the briefs are notably interesting, one from Professor Robert George of Princeton and his talented young collaborators Ryan T. Anderson of the Heritage Foundation and Sherif Girgis who is toiling on a law degree at Yale and a Ph.D in Philosophy at Princeton.
... Bradley and McHugh want to convince the court that homosexuals do not rise to the level of a “suspect class” deserving of “heighted scrutiny” protection. Those in support of traditional marriage believe the people of California in the Proposition 8 case and that Congress in the Defense of Marriage Act all had “rational” reasons for their claims. It is a lower and much easier claim to defend. Prop 8 and DOMA plaintiffs want to claim “suspect class” which would force the defendants to make the much harder case that the state has a “compelling interest” in maintaining man-woman marriage.
In order to become a suspect class, however, homosexuals have to make the case that there is a history of discrimination against them, that they are politically powerless to fight back, and that theirs is a “discrete group” with “immutable characteristics.” This is not easy.
Bradley and McHugh make the case abundantly and perhaps surprisingly that the plaintiffs fail on the questions of both discreteness and immutability.
Kellie Fiedorek is litigation counsel for Alliance Defending Freedom and wrote last week in Town Hall in conjunction with National Marriage Week:
Many of us will recall the song from Sesame Street that begins, “One of these things is not like the other.” The song conveyed to viewers that not everything, or every relationship, is the same; we have different capabilities and purposes.
The government routinely sings this song as it recognizes and seeks to support certain relationships based on their uniqueness, their distinctive purpose, or their benefit to society.
One such relationship that is unlike any other is marriage.
Marriage is the unique relationship between a man and a woman—a relationship recognized throughout human history and by diverse cultures and faiths. Marriage distinguishes itself from any other because it unites the distinct and uniquely wonderful differences of men and women to bring forth and nurture society’s next generation.
While many relationships exist, the union of a man and a woman is unlike any other as no other relationship joins its participants as one united whole to create a new person. No other relationship is similarly situated in this special way.
John Mauck, a Chicago attorney, submitted a pro-DOMA brief on behalf of the Manhattan Declaration. He writes in the Washington Times:
The Manhattan Declaration describes marriage as “the first institution of society… on which all other human institutions have their foundation.” Understanding what marriage is – and why it matters – could not be more important.
Pending before the Supreme Court is USA v. Windsor, in which Edith Windsor, a lesbian claiming unfair treatment under federal estate tax law, seeks a declaration that the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) violates the Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause. Because resolution of that and a companion case will decide how the Equal Protection Clause applies to marriage laws, the Court decision will not only affect federal policy, but will almost certainly impact outcomes in various states in a number of cases seeking to invalidate traditional marriage.
... If marriage is redefined, eventually millions of our children who are subject to adoption, foster care or custody disputes will be placed in living situations not based on the child’s best interest, but based on the new family structures the Supreme Court or individual states have decreed to be normative. For example, after Illinois enacted the Domestic Partnership Act, Attorney General Lisa Madigan warned Illinois child placement agencies of enforcement action if they “discriminate” based on marital status (including single, homosexual and unmarried). Ms. Madigan’s threat implicitly subordinates the “best interest of the child” standard to political dogma.
OKLAHOMA CITY (AP) - A nonbinding resolution to reaffirm marriage as a union between a man and a woman and support the federal Defense of Marriage Act has been approved in the Oklahoma Senate.
"...We cannot hope to limit government if we do not stand up for our core civil society institutions, beginning with marriage. Marriage is the foundation of America’s cultural stability and economic prosperity and the courts have no business overruling the people’s democratic decisions in the states. People can love whom they want and live the way they choose, but no one is entitled to redefine a foundational institution of civil society that has existed for centuries.
In a brief answering jurisdictional questions raised by the Court when it took on the DOMA dispute, the House’s Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group (BLAG) argued that it has a right under the Constitution’s Article III to be in court in DOMA cases. It noted that the administration has stopped defending the law and instead is attacking it.
Two of the briefs are notably interesting, one from Professor Robert George of Princeton and his talented young collaborators Ryan T. Anderson of the Heritage Foundation and Sherif Girgis who is toiling on a law degree at Yale and a Ph.D in Philosophy at Princeton.
Many of us will recall the song from Sesame Street that begins, “One of these things is not like the other.” The song conveyed to viewers that not everything, or every relationship, is the same; we have different capabilities and purposes.
